Statutory Interpretation

• Statute


  A law made by Parliament, otherwise known as an Act of Parliament. It is primary legislation and is the highest source of law.
• Statutory Interpretation


  A process where judges establish the true and correct intention of the law-making bodies.
• Parliament makes the law and judges apply it. In doing this, they create precedents for future cases to follow.
• In most cases, the meaning of statutes is clear and judge's role is simply to determine how this law applies to the facts of the case before them.
• Judges have a measure of discretion and creative power in the manner in which they interpret legislation.
• Occasionally words require interpreting. Like any other form of communication, legislation can include words that have more than one meaning, or words whose meaning changes depending on its context.
• Brock v DPP (1993)


  • The court had to interpret the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which contained the phrase 'any dog of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier'.
• Changes in the use of language over time can mean that the meaning of words in statutes needs to be interpreted.
• New developments, such as changes in technology or science, can mean that older acts of parliament do not cover modern issues.
• Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981)- Purposive Approach


  • The court had to interpret the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Abortion Act 1967 in light of advances in medical science.
• Ambiguous words


  Some words have more than one meaning, requiring interpretation in court.
• Approaches to statutory interpretation


  • Literal rule
  • Golden rule
  • Mischief rule
  • Purposive approach
• Whiteley v Chappel (1968)


  • The judge interpreted the word 'entitled' literally, finding the defendant not guilty - literal rule
• Golden rule


  Allows words in a statute to be modified to avoid an absurd or repugnant result - R v Allen
• Adler v George (1964)- Golden Rule


  • The judge used the golden rule to interpret 'in the vicinity of' to include both within and around the prohibited place.
• R v Allen (1872)


  • The court held that the word 'marry' should be interpreted as 'to go through a marriage ceremony' - golden rule
• Mischief rule


  Looks at the gap in the law Parliament intended to fill - as seen in Smith v Hughes
• Elliott v Grey (1960)- Purposive Approach


  • The judge decided that the Road Traffic Act 1930 was passed to stop the hazard of broken-down cars on the road, even though the car could not be 'used'.
• Purposive approach


  Looks for the intention of Parliament and fills in the gaps, allowing judges to look outside the Act - Jones v Tower Boot Co.
• Magor and St Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporation (1950)


  • Lord Denning stated that the court should find the intention of Parliament and ministers, and carry it out by filling in the gaps - Purposive Approach.
• Lord Simmons criticised the purposive approach, suggesting that if a gap is disclosed, the remedy lies in an amending Act, not in judges using power to fill in the gaps.
• Difference between mischief and purposive


  The mischief rule looks at the objective of the legislation, while the purposive approach seeks to determine Parliament's intentions. The purposive approach gives judges more flexibility.
• Ejusdem Generis


  When specific things are listed, followed by general words, the general words are interpreted to be of the same type as the specific ones - as seen in Powell v Kempton.
• Ejusdem Generis- Case Example


  • In Powell v Kempton (1899), "other places" was interpreted to mean similar places of public entertainment because it followed a list of specific places mentioned in the statute
• Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius


  If something is explicitly mentioned, it's assumed that anything not mentioned is excluded - as seen in Tempest v Kilner.
• Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius- Case Example


  • In Tempest v Kilner (1846), because a statute mentioned "goods, wares, and merchandise," debts were considered excluded from the law since they weren't explicitly mentioned
• Noscitur a Sociis


  The meaning of a word can be understood from the words around it - as seen in Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere
• Noscitur a Sociis- Case Example


  • In Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere (1965), the word "agricultural" was interpreted broadly to include activities related to farming because it appeared alongside other words related to agriculture
• Literal rule


  where the ordinary and plain meaning of a statute is applied to a case, even if it causes an absurd result - Fisher v Bell
• Rules of Interpretation

  1. Ejusdem Generis
  2. Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius
  3. Noscitur a Sociis